Shepard v. Carrigan
Citations
- 116 U.S. 593
- 6 S. Ct. 493
- 29 L. Ed. 723
- 1886 U.S. LEXIS 1802
Syllabus
<p>When an applicant for a patent is compelled by the rejection of his application at the patent office, to narrow his claim by the introduction of a new-element, he cannot, after the issue of the patent, broaden his claim by dropping the element which he was compelled to include in order to secure the patent.,</p> <p>The patent granted to Helen M. MacDonald, September 39, 1874, for an .improvement in dress protectors, must be construed to include a fluted or plaited, band or border as one of the essential elements of the invention, and is not infringed by the manufacture or sale of skirt protectors which have neither plaited nor fluted bands or boarders.</p>
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- reversing a judgment of infringement and noting that the prior art and the accused device depicted a skirt protector without a “fluted or plaited band or border,” while the patent described a skirt protector with such a border
- find ing no infringement because the accused skirt protector lacked plaited or fluted bands to which the patentee had limited her claim to distinguish the prior art
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Woods
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.